A fresh look at special education law-mostly in understandable English.
Jim Gerl is a consultant for a state and local education agencies, he writes regulations and he speaks on special ed law topics. He has presented at many national and regional conferences, and he has trained, evaluated, coached and mentored hearing officers, mediators and complaint investigators from every state. He's also a due process hearing officer and mediator for a number of states.
Contact jimgerl@gmail.com

Pages

Monday, August 26, 2013

Breaking: DOE Promulgates Proposed Regs Eliminating 2 % Rule

Seal of the United States Department of Education (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Education proposed regulations under ESEA and IDEA to transition away from the so-called "2 percent rule," in order to hold all students to high standards that better prepare them for college and career. Under the existing regulations, States had previously been allowed to develop alternate assessments aligned to modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAAS) for some students with disabilities and use the results of those assessments for accountability purposes under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Under the proposed regulations, a State already administering alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards could no longer administer such assessments after the 2013–14 school year.

You can review the text of the proposed regulation (technically "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" or "NPRM") here. The regulation does not take effect until after a period of public comment. You can and should send your comments to the proposed regulation to DOE. Comments must be received by October 7, 2013. By far the best way is through the federal portal at: www.regulations.gov

4 comments:

Many of my students have multiple, severe disabilities. They fit into that tiny percentage of students who require highly specialized education plans that are not likely to include goals of attending college or having a traditional job (note that I said "traditional job"). If I'm understanding the new proposed regulation, it would require that these students be assessed using the standards for general education students without disabilities. Am I missing something?

Arne Duncan says, "We have to expect the very best from our students and tell the truth about student performance.”

Yes, let us tell the truth! In Lake Wobegon, all children are above average; everywhere else, all children are spread out under a bell curve. A child with an IQ of 45 will never ever achieve academically at the same level as a child with an IQ of 145. Or 100. Or 80. No amount of wishful thinking or political posturing will alter that reality. No data indicates that student achievement is improving through the various iterations of standards-based school reform over the past two decades. Despite the familiar rhetoric, no scientific research has ever demonstrated that establishing a single set of regular education standards for all students, regardless of ability, and then repeatedly testing against those standards can improve academic achievement on average or close any achievement gaps.

The one-set-of-standards-fits-all approach is especially cruel treatment of students with moderate-severe disabilities for whom “college and career-ready standards” are inappropriate, who instead need education focused on their specific individual skills, abilities, and potential so they might have some hope of living satisfying and productive lives.

I think what we are all missing is a truth that Arne Duncan did not mention: The standards-assessment dyad that has dominated federal policy initiatives for more than a decade has yielded a windfall for the for-profit educational assessment and charter school industries. Vast amounts of public education money are now flowing into corporate hands with little discernible benefit to students with or without disabilities. Let’s scrutinize that a little more closely!

What utter nonsense. It's like judging everybody by how fast they can run 100 yards; even the ones with no legs.

Alternative assessments (and standards) do not prevent achievement, they make it possible. For example, the new Common Core standards require students to explain their reasoning why 2+2=4. Fine. MY STUDENTS CAN'T SPEAK OR WRITE! Not because they haven't learned to yet, but because of different brain structure.

Give all children achievable goals and the support they need to reach them.

About Me

I'm a special education law consultant. I have spoken on SpEd law topics at numerous state, regional and national conferences, including: the Institute; CEC; National Ed Law Conference; ACRES; the Consortium on Appropriate Dispute Resolution on Special Education; Seattle University Academy; Utah, California, West Virginia, Wyoming, Arizona and TriState Special Ed Law conferences, Alfred U and UNH. I have provided consultations and trainings to many state education agencies, and I have consulted with the federal Secretary of OSERS and OSEP, about rural issues and dispute resolution.
I have trained hearing officers, mediators and complaint investigators from every state and a number of territories. I have given numerous interviews on special ed law, and I have been quoted in education publications. I have been a mediator and a hearing officer for West Virginia since 1989, and I am a hearing officer for Utah, and Pennsylvania (one IU only). I also was a mediator and hearing officer for Washington, DC for over two years. I am now a state complaint investigator for South Dakota and New Mexico. I am licensed to practice law in West Virginia, Illinois and Washington, DC.

Hearing Officer at Work

After 20 Some Years as a Hearing Officer

Hearing Officer On The Bench

Translate This Blog Into Another Language

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE - Please Note

This Special Education Law Blog is intended for educational purposes only. Nothing said in the posts, comments or elsewhere in this blog should be construed as legal advice. If you have a dispute or any other legal problem, you should confer with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your state. Any reference or description of individuals that resembles actual persons or any reference to what appears to be personally identifiable information is purely coincidental and unintentional. All comments, posts or other discussion should be accepted in the spirit of philosophical debate rather than as instruction or advice of any kind. Any abusive, profane, offensive or defamatory language of any kind is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated.Disclosure Policy(FTC) (effective 05/23/2014)This blog is a personal and business blog written and edited by Jim Gerl. For questions about this blog, please contact jimgerl@gmail.com. This blog does not accept paid advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. The only products advertised are ones that I create myself. I write for my own purposes and for exposure of my business. However, I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. The owner of this blog does not receive compensation in any direct way from this blog, other than from the sale of products that I create myself. This blog may contain content which could present a conflict of interest; such content will be identified in the post in which it occurs.